ÿWPC¿‰ RU:Œ %Æ 0ÜÌw@¨4èü  0  0D3 0Jw 0TÁ 0^ 0hs 0rÛ 0|M 0†É 0O 1uß 0dT B¸ U.*Õ B)ÿ DC( AMk˸”ƒ™M°“ýÎè^ ¬F#¤ò)¿–,èU2=LÍ QO[! 7_XiüpmêlpLVvû¢xs{v~€vÓŽ AQa‡Ʋ‡ 0Dxˆ 0@¼ˆ 0Düˆ D/@‰ Bo‰ D3Œ‰,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ »¼D½(+¾D¿UÀUÁUÂUÃÓ€Ï §aö"3|xÏ(Ð(3i$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€i¿XXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1ddIK'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒJ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ28,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€filed€his€petition€prior€to€May€10,€1995,€the€effective€date€of€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Accordingly,€the€1995€Act€is€inapplicable€to€the€appellantððs€case.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€also€submitted€a€motion€to€this€court€to€stay€his€appeal€pending€theÏresolution€of€his€federal€habeas€corpus€proceedings.€€On€August€22,€1996,€we€denied€theÏappellantððs€motion.Ì CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€its€order€dismissing€the€appellantððs€petition,€the€post„conviction€court€stated:Ìà8 àPetitioner€raises€no€claims€in€this€third€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€whichÏhave€not€been€either€previously€determined€or€waived.€€As€Petitioner€hasÏpresented€no€issue€requiring€an€evidentiary€hearing€the€petition€is€herebyÏdismissed€by€this€Court.Ì(Citation€omitted).Ì ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóGenerally,€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€prove€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence€the€allegations€in€the€petition.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,Ï697€(Tenn.€1995);€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9506„CR„00211€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,ÏMarch€20,€1997).€€The€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòIdóó.€Ì ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòSample€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9505„CR„00131,€„00139€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€September€30,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1997)(although€filed€after€theÏstatutory€period€of€limitations€had€commenced€and€expired,€the€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€set€forth€a€viable€ground€for€relief,€as€the€petition€was€filed€within€three€years€of€anÏopinion€announcing€a€new,€retroactively€applied,€constitutional€rule);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105(1990).Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€the€instant€case,€the€record€clearly€reflects€that,€despite€the€post„conviction€courtððsÏfailure€to€appoint€counsel,€the€appellant€received€the€assistance€of€counsel€at€all€stages€of€theÏproceedings€and€the€appellantððs€attorney€drafted€the€appellantððs€petition.Ì ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWith€respect€to€any€additional€factual€allegations€raised€in€the€instant€petition,€this€courtÏhas€previously€held€that€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€a€single€ð ðground€for€reliefððÏas€contemplated€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„111€(1990).€€òòCone€v.€Stateóó,€927€S.W.2d€579,€581„582€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€March€22,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996).€€InÏòòConeóó,€we€observedÌà8 àA€petitioner€may€not€relitigate€a€previously€determined€issue€by€presentingÏadditional€factual€allegations.€€We€should€not€encourage€post„convictionÏpetitioners€to€invent€new€facts€to€revive€an€issue€which€was€unfavorably€decided,Ïnor€should€we€allow€petitioners€to€ððsandbagðð€by€reserving€factual€claims€until€theirÏsecond€or€third€petition.€€ÌòòIdóó.€at€582.€€Additionally,€with€respect€to€the€performance€of€counsel€during€prior€post„convictionÏproceedings,€there€is€of€course€no€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€post„convictionÏcontext.€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€116€S.Ct.Ï1685€(1996).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòDeem€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9403„CC„00083€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏNashville,€August€29,€1996).Ì šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€do€not€address€whether€the€standard€of€waiver€to€be€applied€in€the€post„convictionÏcontext€is€a€rule€of€procedure€not€affecting€any€substantial€right€of€the€appellant.€€òòBraganóó,€920ÏS.W.2d€at€241.Ì µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€contends€that,€because€his€claims€involve€ð ðfundamental€errors,ðð€theyÏcannot€be€waived.€€Of€course,€because€only€constitutional€violations€are€cognizable€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105,€every€cognizable€error€could€beÏcharacterized€as€ð ðfundamental.ðð€€Nevertheless,€our€supreme€court€has€observed€that€states€haveÏno€constitutional€duty€to€provide€post„conviction€relief€procedures,€and,€accordingly,€theÏopportunity€to€collaterally€attack€constitutional€violations€during€the€conviction€process€is€not€aÏfundamental€right€entitled€to€heightened€due€process€protection.€€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207.€ÏMoreover,€to€the€extent€that€the€appellant€is€arguing€that€capital€litigants€should€be€exempt€fromÏwaiver€or€statute€of€limitations€provisions€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€the€legislature€hasÏdeclined€to€provide€any€such€exception€and€we€decline€to€hold€that€either€the€state€or€federalÏconstitution€mandates€any€such€exception.Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€asserts€that€numerous€issues€raised€in€his€petition€were€previouslyÏunavailable€for€waiver€or€statute€of€limitations€purposes,€because€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€inÏòòOwens€and€Payne€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€927€(Tenn.€1995),€was€issued€following€his€priorÏpost„conviction€proceedings€and€following€the€commencement€and€expiration€of€the€applicableÏstatute€of€limitations.€€In€òòOwens€and€Payneóó,€pursuant€to€principles€of€statutory€construction,€ourÏsupreme€court€held€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€(1990),€authorizing€funding€for€expertÏservices€if€necessary€to€protect€the€constitutional€rights€of€indigent€capital€defendants,€wasÏapplicable€in€post„conviction€capital€cases.€€òòIdóó.€€However,€this€court€recently€opined€that€ð ðnothingÏin€òòOwensóó€suggests€a€new€constitutional€rule€as€anticipated€by€òòBurfordóó€or€retroactive€application€toÏall€prior€post„conviction€actions.ðð€€òòWrightóó,€No.€01C01„9506„CR„00211.€€The€court€declined€toÏcharacterize€òòOwens€and€Payneóó€as€a€later„arising€legal€ground€supporting€the€appellantððs€claim€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€The€contention€of€the€appellant€in€theÏinstant€case€is€similarly€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€additionally€contends€that€his€claim€concerning€his€right€to€a€unanimous€juryÏverdict€is€not€subject€to€waiver€or€the€statute€of€limitations,€as€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€inÏòòShelton€v.€Stateóó,€851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993),€was€issued€following€his€prior€post„convictionÏproceedings€and€following€the€commencement€and€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€InÏòòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€137,€the€court€held€that€its€opinion€in€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801Ï(Tenn.€1973),€required€that€ð ðwhen€evidence€suggests€that€a€defendant€has€committed€manyÏsexual€crimes€against€a€victim,€the€court€must€require€the€state€to€elect€the€particular€offenses€forÏwhich€convictions€are€sought.ðð€€We€doubt€that,€pursuant€to€òòMeadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€751,€theÏcourt€announced€a€new€rule€of€law,€i.e.,€a€rule€that€breaks€new€ground€or€imposes€a€new€obligationÏon€the€state€or€federal€government.€€The€court€noted€ð ðthe€well€established€right€under€our€stateÏconstitution€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict,ðð€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€137.€€Moreover,€the€holding€inÏòòSheltonóó€was€dictated€by€the€holding€in€òòBurlisonóó,€imposing€a€duty€on€the€trial€court€ð ðððto€require€theÏState,€at€the€close€of€its€proof„in„chief,€to€elect€the€particular€offense€of€carnal€knowledge€uponÏwhich€it€would€rely€for€conviction,€and€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€so€that€the€verdict€of€the€juryÏwould€be€united€on€the€one€offense.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€136€(citing€òòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€804).€€In€anyÏevent,€the€holding€in€òòSheltonóó€is€not€even€applicable€by€analogy€to€the€appellantððs€case€in€light€ofÏour€subsequent€conclusion€that,€with€respect€to€the€appellant,€only€one€offense,€premeditatedÏfirst€degree€murder,€was€presented€to€the€jury€for€consideration.ÌÌà àWe€note€in€passing€that,€contrary€to€the€appellantððs€argument€in€his€reply€brief,€his€claimÏconcerning€his€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€does€not€depend€upon€our€supreme€courtððsÏdecision€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€317.€€Indeed,€in€the€main€body€of€his€argumentÏaddressing€this€issue,€the€appellant€does€not€once€cite€òòMiddlebrooksóó.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€further€contends€that€his€claim€that€he€was€sentenced€by€an€impartial€juryÏhas€not€been€waived€and€is€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€He€asserts€that€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€in€òòMorgan€v.€Illinoisóó,€504€U.S.€719,€112€S.Ct.€2222€(1992),€announced€aÏnew€right€or€rule€of€law€that€must€be€retroactively€applied€to€his€case.€€In€òòMorganóó,€the€CourtððsÏholdings,€concerning€the€requirement€of€an€impartial€jury€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capitalÏtrial€and€the€removal€for€cause€of€a€juror€who€declares€that€he€or€she€will€automatically€vote€toÏimpose€the€death€penalty€if€the€defendant€is€convicted,€clearly€do€not€constitute€new€rules€of€law.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€728„729,€2229„2230.€€To€the€extent€the€Court€in€òòMorganóó€announced€a€new€rule€of€law€thatÏmust€be€retroactively€applied,€the€new€rule€imposed€a€duty€on€the€trial€court€to€allow€a€defendant€toÏask€prospective€jurors€whether€or€not€they€would€automatically€vote€in€favor€of€death€in€the€eventÏof€a€guilty€verdict.€€òòIdóó.€at€736,€2233.€€Yet,€the€appellant€in€the€instant€case€does€not€claim€that€theÏtrial€court€impermissibly€limited€voir€dire.€€Rather,€he€contends€that,€during€federal€proceedings,€heÏdiscovered€that,€in€fact,€one€juror€in€his€case€was€predisposed€to€impose€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà àThus,€alternatively,€the€appellant€argues€that€this€issue€was€not€waived€or€subject€to€theÏstatute€of€limitations,€because€the€factual€basis€of€his€claim€was€only€established€during€his€federalÏproceedings,€due€to€investigative€assistance€provided€in€federal€court.€€Yet,€the€appellant€doesÏnot€allege€specifically€when€he€acquired€evidence€supporting€his€claim.€€The€appellantððs€federalÏproceedings€were€initiated€in€1985,€well€before€the€filing€of€the€appellantððs€second€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€and€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€appellant€has€failed€toÏadequately€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver€or€otherwise€explain€why€his€claim€should€beÏaddressed€in€these€proceedings.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€does€not€claim€that€the€ground€forÏrelief€was€previously€unavailable,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€211€(Daughtrey,€J.,Ïconcurring)(citing€the€example€of€suppression€of€material€evidence€by€the€State€that€is€concealedÏfor€many€years€after€trial),€but€rather€that€he€lacked€adequate€funds€to€investigate€his€claim.€€Again,Ïto€the€extent€the€appellant€argues€that€this€claim€remains€viable€because€our€supreme€courtððsÏdecision€in€òòOwens€and€Payneóó€was€issued€in€1995,€we€have€already€determined€that€the€courtððsÏdecision€has€no€such€retroactive€effect.€€Reviewing€the€record,€we€decline€to€conclude€that€dueÏprocess€mandates€the€consideration€of€this€issue.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€the€appellant€filed€his€petition€within€three€years€of€the€supreme€courtððsÏdecision€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€Thus,€pursuant€to€òòBurfordóó€and€òòSandsóó,€even€if€the€statute€of€limitationsÏis€applicable€to€the€appellantððs€petition,€this€claim€remains€a€viable€ground€for€post„conviction€relief.Ì Ã Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that,€in€òòRickmanóó,€864€F.Supp.€at€694,€the€federal€district€court€similarly€found,Ïð ðThe€jury€found€Rickman€guilty€of€wilful,€premeditated,€and€deliberate€murder.ðð€€However,Ïalthough€the€indictment€only€charged€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€the€trial€court,€in€itsÏinstructions€to€the€jury,€recited€verbatim€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2402(a)(1977),Ïwhich€subsection€encompassed€òòbothóó€premeditated€and€felony€murder:Ìà8 àEvery€murder€perpetrated€by€means€of€poison,€lying€in€wait,€or€by€any€other€kindÏof€wilful,€deliberate,€malicious,€and€premeditated€killing,€or€committed€in€theÏperpetration€of,€or€attempt€to€perpetrate,€any€murder€in€the€first€degree,€arson,Ïrape,€robbery,€burglary,€larceny,€kidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€the€unlawfulÏthrowing,€placing€or€discharging€of€a€destructive€device€or€bomb,€is€murder€in€theÏfirst€degree.ÌHowever,€the€trial€court€then€instructed€the€jury:Ìà8 àWhen€the€act€of€killing€is€òònotóó€done€during€the€commission€of€a€rape,€robbery,€orÏkidnapping,€in€order€to€make€it€murder€in€the€first€degree€not€only€must€the€killingÏbe€done€wilfully,€deliberately€and€maliciously,€but€it€must€also€be€done€withÏpremeditation,€that€is€a€design€to€kill€must€be€formed€coolly€and€deliberately€andÏbefore€the€act€is€performed€by€which€death€is€produced€and€the€killing€must€beÏthe€cool€and€deliberate€act€of€the€slayer.ÌÌà8 àòòThis€is€the€distinctive€feature€of€murder€in€the€first€degree,€as€charged€in€theÏindictmentóó.Ì(Emphasis€added).€€Ìà àJury€instructions€must€be€reviewed€in€the€context€of€the€overall€charge€rather€than€inÏisolation.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€No.€02C01„9508„CR„00232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€January€2,Ï1997).€€In€this€context,€it€is€apparent€that€the€trial€court€did€not€intend€to€have€the€jury€apply€theÏfelony€murder€doctrine€to€this€case.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Wardóó,€663€S.W.2d€805,€807„808€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1983)(in€this€somewhat€analogous€case,€the€trial€court€recited€the€language€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2402€in€its€instruction€to€the€jury€despite€the€absence€of€any€evidence€at€trial€thatÏthe€murder€was€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€felony;€even€in€light€of€evidence€that€jurors€mayÏhave€misunderstood€the€instruction,€this€court€found€no€error,€concluding€that€the€inclusion€in€theÏinstructions€of€the€reference€to€felony€murder€was€only€an€attempt€to€provide€the€jury€with€aÏcomplete€definition€of€the€offense€for€which€the€appellant€was€indicted€and€was€a€correctÏstatement€of€Tennessee€law).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€òòRigginsóó,€the€defendant€challenged€his€convictions€on€grounds€that€the€State€ofÏNevada€forced€drugs€upon€him€at€trial.€€Riggins€argued€that,€because€he€relied€upon€an€insanityÏdefense,€the€forced€medication€deprived€him€of€the€right€to€show€jurors€his€demeanor€and€ð ðtrueÏmental€state.ðð€€Thus,€the€Stateððs€administration€of€antipsychotic€drugs€over€his€objection€deniedÏhim€due€process.€€The€Supreme€Court€agreed€finding€these€facts€implicated€Rigginsðð€FourteenthÏAmendment€right€and,€additionally,€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€assist€counsel€in€his€defense.Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔThe€State€contends€in€its€brief€that€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined€by€theÏfederal€district€court,€which€decided€this€issue€in€favor€of€the€appellant.€€òòRickmanóó,€864€F.Supp.€atÏ713„714.€Indeed,€this€court€has€observed:Ìà8 àUnder€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó,€a€second€suit€is€barred€between€the€sameÏparties€on€the€same€cause€of€action€with€respect€to€all€issues€which€were€litigatedÏand€which€could€have€been€litigated.€€A€corollary€doctrine€of€res€judicata€is€theÏdoctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€which€states€that€when€an€issue€has€once€beenÏdetermined€by€a€valid€and€final€judgment,€that€issue€cannot€again€be€litigatedÏbetween€the€same€parties€in€any€future€lawsuit.€€In€effect,€T.C.A.€Sec.€40„30„112Ïis€a€codified€form€of€these€two€doctrines€.€.€.€by€which€petitioners€are€bound€byÏprevious€judgments€and€determinations.ÌòòState€v.€Blakeóó,€No.€1326€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€March€19,€1991)(citations€omitted).€ÏSimilarly,€in€òòMyers€v.€Stateóó,€462€S.W.2d€265,€269€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970),€this€court€stated€thatÏthe€appellant€could€not€relitigate€questions€previously€determined€adversely€to€him€in€twoÏseparate€habeas€corpus€cases€by€state€and€federal€courts€of€competent€jurisdiction.€€However,€inÏòòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€455€S.W.2d€627,€629€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970),€this€court€also€held€ð ðthat€the€factÏthat€the€petitioner€did€have€pending€on€appeal€in€the€United€States€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€aÏpetition€.€.€.€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€did€not€deny€jurisdiction€to€the€trial€court€to€consider€[theÏappellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief].ðð€€In€òòOððGuinnóó,€No.€02C01„9510„CC„00302,€this€courtÏalso€observed€that,€because€the€federal€district€courtððs€decision€resolving€the€appellantððs€claim€wasÏreversed€and€vacated€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit€and€the€Supreme€Court€deniedÏcertiorari,€the€appellantððs€claim€was€not€previously€determined.€€Accordingly,€in€light€of€the€currentÏposture€of€the€appellantððs€habeas€corpus€proceedings,€i.e.,€on€appeal€before€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€has€not€yet€been€previously€determinedÏand€may€be€considered€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€Ô€%XÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSee€alsoóó€€òòMills€v.€Rogersóó,€457€U.S.€291,€299,€102€S.Ct.€2442,€2448€(1982)€(theÏConstitution€recognizes€a€liberty€interest€of€mental€hospital€patients€in€avoiding€the€unwantedÏadministration€of€antipsychotic€drugs);€€òòBee€v.€Greavesóó,€744€F.2d€1387,€1394€(10th€Cir.€1984)Ï(plaintiff's€liberty€interest€in€avoiding€unwanted€medication€is€not€absolute);€òòCommonwealth€v.ÏLouraineóó,€453€N.E.2d€437€(Mass.€1983);€òòIn€re€Prayóó,€336€A.2d€174€(Vt.€1975);€òòState€v.€Murphyóó,Ï355€P.2d€323€(Wash.€1960);€òòState€v.€Maryottóó,€492€P.2d€239€(Wash.€App.€1971).Ì òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€Court€expressly€noted€that€"[t]he€Fourteenth€Amendment€affords€at€least€as€muchÏprotection€to€persons€the€State€detains€for€trial€[as€that€protection€afforded€to€inmates]."€€òòIdóó.€atÏ135,€102€S.Ct.€at€1815€(citing€òòBell€v.€Wolfishóó,€441€U.S.€520,€545,€99€S.Ct.€1861,€1877€(1979)).Ì àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAgain,€we€note€that€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€expired€in€the€appellant'sÏcase€on€July€1,€1989.€€However,€the€statute€of€limitations€will€not€bar€a€post„conviction€claim€whenÏthe€ground€for€relief€arises€after€"the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€whichÏappeal€is€taken."€€òòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301.€€Thus,€in€order€for€a€subsequent€decision€by€a€courtÏto€constitute€a€later„arising€ground€for€relief,€the€rule€announced€therein€must€constitute€a€newÏrule€of€law€that€should€be€applied€retroactively.€€Under€both€federal€and€Tennessee€law,€a€new€ruleÏof€constitutional€law€exists€"when€it€breaks€new€ground€or€imposes€a€new€obligation€on€the€StatesÏor€the€Federal€Government€.€.€.€.€€€To€put€it€differently,€a€case€announces€a€new€rule€if€the€result€wasÏnot€òòdictatedóó€by€precedent€existing€at€the€time€the€defendant's€conviction€became€final."€€òòTeagueÏv.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€301,€109€S.Ct.€1060,€1070€(1989)€(emphasis€in€original);€òòMeadows€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€751€(Tenn.€1993).€Ì BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€find€it€unnecessary€to€determine€whether€òòHarperóó€created€a€new€constitutional€rule.€ÏòòSeeóó€supra€note€2.Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€òòRigginsóó,€Justice€O'Connor,€writing€for€the€majority,€stated:€€"The€record€in€this€caseÏnarrowly€defines€the€issues€before€us.€€.€.€.[O]nce€the€District€Court€denied€Riggins'€motion€toÏterminate€use€of€the€Mellaril,€subsequent€administration€of€the€drug€was€involuntary."€€òòIdóó.€Ì iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À©´XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòMagwoodóó,€689€So.2d€at€985€(petitioner€must€assertively€object€toÏmedication€to€be€involuntary);€òòFergusonóó,€632€So.2d€at€56„57€(administration€of€medicationÏvoluntary€where€evidence€showed€that€petitioner€received€medication€in€cell,€that€he€was€upsetÏwhen€he€did€not€receive€medication,€that€medication€was€appropriate,€and€that€counsel€neverÏrequested€on€the€record€that€medication€be€discontinued€);€òòVan€Ordenóó,€647€N.E.2D€at€644Ï(petitioner€never€objected€to€being€medicated,€thus€administration€of€medication€was€voluntary);€ÏòòThomasóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€24€(no€objection€on€record€to€demonstrate€that€medication€wasÏinvoluntary).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒIJKLMCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óNN'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSON̜ـIÙßR€()'A1-j|` | `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAPRIL€SESSION,€1997Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òRONALD€RICKMAN,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9608„CR„00252Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Carolyn€Wade€Blackett,ÏJudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction€„€Capital€Case)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àÌÌó óÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òWILLIAM€P.€REDICK,€JR.ó óà àà àò òà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌPost€Office€Box€187à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ6750€Old€Hickory€Blvd.à àÌWhites€Creek,€TN€€37189à àà àà àò òJOHN€P.€CAULEYó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àò òWILLIAM€P.€REDICK,€JR.,ó óÌDirectorà àà àÌò òPAUL€BOTTEI,à àà àà àà àJAMES€J.€CHALLEN,€IIIÌó óStaff€Attorneyà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏCapital€Case€Resource€Centerà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌof€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àSuite€301,€201€Poplar€Ave.Ì704€18th€Ave.€Southà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àÌNashville,€TN€€37203Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌ(AT€TRIAL)ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Ronald€Rickman,€appeals€the€post„conviction€courtððsÏsummary€dismissal€of€his€third€petition€for€post„conviction€court€relief.€€In€1978,€theÏappellant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€to€death€for€theÏcontract€killing€of€Deborah€Lee€Groseclose,€the€wife€of€his€co„defendant,€WilliamÏGroseclose.€€In€1981,€our€supreme€court€affirmed€the€appellantððs€conviction.€€òòStateÏv.€Groseclose€and€Rickmanóó,€615€S.W.2d€142€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€882,Ï102€S.Ct.€367€(1981).€€In€1982,€the€appellant€filed€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€the€post„conviction€court€denied€following€the€appointmentÏof€counsel€and€a€full€evidentiary€hearing.€€This€court€affirmed€the€lower€courtððsÏjudgment.€€òòGroseclose€and€Rickman€v.€Stateóó,€No.€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,ÏFebruary€16,€1984).€€Our€supreme€court€denied€the€appellant€permission€to€appeal,Ïand€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€denied€certiorari.€€òòRickman€v.€Tennesseeóó,Ï469€U.S.€963,€105€S.Ct.€363€(1984).€€In€1985,€the€appellant€filed€a€Petition€for€WritÏof€Habeas€Corpus€in€federal€district€court.€€Subsequently,€in€1989,€while€hisÏhabeas€corpus€petition€was€still€pending€in€federal€district€court,€the€appellant€filedÏhis€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€1990,€the€post„conviction€courtÏdismissed€the€appellantððs€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€This€courtÏaffirmed€the€lower€courtððs€judgment.€€òòRickman€v.€Stateóó,€No.€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€September€11,€1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€1994,Ïpursuant€to€the€appellantððs€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€of€his€habeasÍcorpus€petition,€the€federal€district€court€vacated€the€appellantððs€sentence€of€death.€ÏòòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€854€F.€Supp.€1305€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994).€€Thereafter,€in€a€separateÏopinion,€the€federal€district€court€vacated€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€first€degreeÏmurder.€€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€864€F.Supp.€686€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994).€€The€federalÏdistrict€courtððs€opinions€are€now€on€appeal€before€the€United€States€Court€ofÏAppeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit.ÌÌÌà àNevertheless,€on€April€13,€1995,€the€appellant€filed€the€instant€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€his€third€petition.× ƒ* ××  ×€€On€May€24,€1995,€the€appellant€filedÏbefore€the€post„conviction€court€a€ð ðMotion€to€Abate€Proceedings,ðð€pendingÏresolution€of€the€federal€appeal.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€appellant€asserted€that€affirmance€by€theÏSixth€Circuit€of€the€federal€district€courtððs€decisions€would€render€the€instant€post„conviction€proceedings€moot.€€On€July€7,€1995,€the€appellant€further€submitted€toÏthe€post„conviction€court€a€motion€for€appointment€of€counsel.€€On€March€6,€1996,Ïthe€post„conviction€court€denied€the€appellantððs€motions€and€dismissed€theÏappellantððs€petition,€finding€that€the€appellant€had€raised€no€claims€in€his€thirdÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€that€had€not€been€previously€determined€orÍwaived.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€consideration:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)à8 àWhether€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€a€new€sentencingÏhearing€pursuant€to€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€inÏòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992);Ìà8 à(2)à8 àWhether€the€appellant€was€denied€his€right,€under€theÏTennessee€constitution,€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict;Ìà8 à(3)à8 àWhether€the€appellant€was€involuntarily€administeredÏð ðmind„dulling€drugsðð€during€his€trial€in€violation€of€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòRiggins€v.ÏNevadaóó,€504€U.S.€127,€112€S.Ct.€1810€(1992);Ìà8 à(4)à8 àWhether€the€death€penalty€infringes€upon€theÏappellantððs€fundamental€right€to€life€in€violation€of€theÏTennessee€and€United€States€constitutions;Ìà8 à(5)à8 àWhether€the€Stateððs€plea€offer€of€a€life€sentenceÏinfringed€upon€the€appellantððs€right€to€trial€and€resultedÏin€the€arbitrary€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€death€inÏviolation€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€StatesÏconstitutions;Ìà8 à(6)à8 àWhether€the€appellant€was€sentenced€by€an€impartialÏjury€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€StatesÏconstitutions;Ìà8 à(7)à8 àWhether,€in€violation€of€the€state€and€federalÏconstitutions,€the€grand€jury€was€tainted€by€genderÏdiscrimination€in€the€selection€of€grand€jury€forepersonsÏin€Shelby€County;Ìœ›à8 à(8)à8 àWhether€the€appellant€was€denied€effective€assistanceÏof€counsel€at€trial€or€in€any€subsequent€proceeding€inÏviolation€of€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.ÌÌÌÓÓà àFollowing€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððsÏjudgment.ÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€dismissing€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.× ƒ- ××  ×€€The€State€contends€that€the€appellantððs€petitionÏis€time„barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102Ï(1990)(ð ð[a]€prisoner€in€custody€under€sentence€of€a€court€of€this€state€must€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief€.€.€.€within€three€years€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€theÏhighest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€is€takenðð).€€Our€supreme€courtÏaffirmed€the€appellantððs€conviction€in€1981,€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€three€yearÏstatute€of€limitations€and€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€statute€on€July€1,€1986.€ÏThe€new€limitations€period€applied€to€existing€causes€prospectively€from€thisÏeffective€date.€€òòAbston€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€487,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€òòSeeÏalsoóó€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297,€301€(Tenn.€1995)(the€supreme€courtÏacknowledged€the€ð ðòòAbstonóó€ruleðð).€€Accordingly,€the€statute€of€limitations€expired€inÏthe€appellantððs€case€on€July€1,€1989.€€ÌÌà àRegardless€of€the€applicability€of€the€statute,€under€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845ÏS.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992),€and€òòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€297,× ƒ. ××  ×€to€the€various€issuesÏraised€by€the€appellant,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€State€did€not€rely€upon€theÏstatute€of€limitations€when€arguing€before€the€post„conviction€court€and€cannot€relyÏupon€this€defense€on€appeal.€€In€its€answer€to€the€appellantððs€petition€and€inÏproceedings€before€the€post„conviction€court,€the€State€argued€that€the€courtÏshould€dismiss€the€appellantððs€petition,€because€the€appellantððs€case€was€pendingÏbefore€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit.€€Inexplicably,€in€itsÏresponse,€the€State€did€not€allege€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€nor€didÏit€raise€the€defenses€of€waiver€and€previous€determination€or€address€the€merits€ofÏthe€appellantððs€petition.ÌÌà àGenerally,€with€respect€to€those€seeking€post„conviction€relief,€this€court€willÏnot€address€post„conviction€issues€that€were€not€raised€in€the€petition€or€addressedÏin€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€928€S.W.2d€453,€457€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996)(citing€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€814€S.W.2d€45,Ï49€(Tenn.€1991)).€€The€appellant€correctly€observes€in€his€brief€that€this€court€hasÏsimilarly€declined€to€adopt€a€position€of€the€State€taken€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€ÍòòState€v.€Perryóó,€No.€03C01„9401„CR„00016€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€Moreover,€the€statute€of€limitations€is€an€affirmativeÏdefense€which€the€State€must€plead€and€prove.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€873€S.W.2d€5,€6Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Failure€to€do€so€constitutes€a€waiver€of€the€defense.€€òòIdóó.Ï(citations€omitted).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSandusky€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9404„CC„00142Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€2,€1995)(a€statute€of€limitations€defense€mayÏnot€be€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal).€€The€post„conviction€court€may€raise€theÏissue€òòsua€sponteóó.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòHandley€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€223,€224€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€However,€in€the€instant€case,€the€court€did€not€address€thisÏdefense.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€in€òòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€299,€our€supreme€court,€in€theÏcontext€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03's€specific€pleading€requirement,€held€that€this€courtÏdid€not€err€in€applying€the€statute€of€limitations€to€the€appellantððs€coram€nobis€claim,Ïdespite€the€Stateððs€failure€to€specifically€plead€the€period€of€limitations€applicable€toÏcoram€nobis€actions,€either€in€its€motion€to€dismiss€the€appellantððs€petition€for€a€writÏof€coram€nobis€and/or€post„conviction€relief€or€at€the€hearing€before€the€trial€court.€ÏThe€State€did€cite€the€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€post„conviction€petitions.€ÏòòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€the€court€concluded€that€the€appellant€had€received€fair€notice€ofÏthe€defense.€€òòIdóó.€€The€supreme€court€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àAlthough€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€does€require€that€a€statute€of€limitationsÏdefense€be€specifically€pleaded,€it€is€well€settled€that€failure€to€do€soÍdoes€not€result€in€a€waiver€of€the€defense€if€the€opposing€party€isÏgiven€fair€notice€of€the€defense€and€an€opportunity€to€rebut€it.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€purpose€of€the€specific€pleading€requirement€is€to€preventÏa€party€from€raising€a€defense€at€the€last€moment€and€therebyÏprejudicing€the€opposing€partyððs€opportunity€to€rebut€the€defense.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).€€In€òòSmithóó,€873€S.W.2d€at€6„7,€this€court€suggested,€consistentÏwith€the€above€rationale,€that€when€a€defense€has€not€been€pled,€but€the€petitionerÏhas€raised€the€issue€in€his€own€pleadings,€there€is€no€waiver.€€In€the€instant€case,Ïas€pointed€out€by€the€State,€the€appellant€addressed€the€statute€of€limitationsÏdefense€in€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€in€his€brief€on€appeal.€ÏAdditionally,€appellantððs€counsel€raised€the€issue€of€the€statute€of€limitations€beforeÏthe€post„conviction€court€when€arguing€before€the€court€that€the€appellantððs€petitionÏshould€not€be€dismissed.€€Appellantððs€counsel€conceded€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€had€already€run,€but€cited€exceptions€to€application€of€the€statute.€€TheseÏfacts€are€distinguished€from€those€in€òòPerryóó.€€The€proof€reveals€that€the€appellantÏwas€clearly€aware€of€the€statute€of€limitation€and€its€importance.€€Thus,€the€State'sÏfailure€to€specifically€plead€the€defense€of€statute€of€limitation€did€not€prejudice€theÏappellant.€€Accordingly,€the€State€may,€on€appeal,€rely€upon€the€defenses€of€statuteÏof€limitation,€waiver,€and€previous€determination€in€support€of€its€position.€€ÌÌÌà àHowever,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€failed€to€enterÏspecific€findings€as€to€each€issue€raised€by€the€appellant€in€his€petition.€€In€effect,Íthe€appellant€challenges€the€post„conviction€courtððs€compliance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„30„118(b)(1990).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b)€provides:ÌÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ ` ÒÒ 4 ÒÓÓUpon€the€final€disposition€of€every€petition,€the€court€shall€enterÏa€final€order,€and€.€.€.€shall€set€forth€in€the€order€or€a€writtenÏmemorandum€of€the€case€all€grounds€presented€and€shall€stateÏthe€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€with€regard€to€eachÏsuch€ground.ÌÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒThis€court€has€observed€that,€"[a]lthough€this€requirement€has€been€determined€toÏbe€mandatory,€the€failure€of€the€trial€judge€to€abide€by€the€requirement€does€notÏalways€mandate€a€reversal€of€the€trial€court's€judgment."€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680ÏS.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)(citations€omitted).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSwanson€v.ÏStateóó,€749€S.W.2d€731,€739€n.3€(Tenn.€1988).€€Noncompliance€by€the€post„conviction€court€does€not€warrant€a€reversal€if€the€record€is€sufficient€to€effectuate€aÏmeaningful€appellate€review.€€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9107„CR„00233€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€26,€1992).€€Even€if€not€ideal€in€form,€the€order€ofÏdismissal€in€this€case€does€set€forth€the€reasons€for€the€post„conviction€court'sÏdismissal€of€the€appellant's€petition.€€"[W]here€the€record€of€the€proceedingsÏcontains€the€reasons€of€the€trial€judge€for€dismissing€the€petition,€the€record€isÏsufficient€to€effectuate€meaningful€appellate€review."€€òòWatkins€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1121Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€September€18,€1989).ÌÌà àOf€course,€we€must€still€determine€if€the€post„conviction€court€properlyÏdismissed€the€appellantððs€petition€without€appointing€counsel€and€without€anÍevidentiary€hearing.€€This€court€has€observed€that€there€is€a€discernible€trendÏtoward€appointing€counsel€to€assist€òòpro€seóó€appellants€in€post„convictionÏproceedings,€providing€opportunities€to€amend€petitions,€and€allowing€evidentiaryÏhearings.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€òòCarmley€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9305„CR„00167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€January€13,€1994).€€Nevertheless,€"a€clear€but€patently€non„meritoriousÏpetition€may€be€dismissed€summarily,"€without€the€appointment€of€counsel€or€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€òòMartucci€v.€Stateóó,€872€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993);€€òòCureton€v.€Tollettóó,€477€S.W.2d€233,€236€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€A€petitionÏsets€forth€a€colorable€claim€if€it€alleges€facts€showing€that€the€conviction€resultedÏfrom€an€abridgment€of€a€constitutional€right€and€demonstrates€that€the€ground€forÏrelief€was€not€previously€determined€or€waived.€€òòCarmleyóó,€No.€03C01„9305„CR„00167.ÌÌà àWe€must€therefore€determine€whether€the€appellantððs€claims€have€beenÏwaived€or€previously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(1990)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àA€ground€for€relief€is€ððpreviously€determinedðð€if€a€court€of€competentÏjurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.€.€.€.€€AÏground€for€relief€is€ððwaivedðð€if€the€petitioner€knowingly€andÏunderstandingly€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€anyÏproceeding€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€theÏground€could€have€been€presented.ÌÌÓÓInitially,€the€record€conclusively€demonstrates€that€the€appellantððs€claim€ofÍineffective€assistance€of€counsel€has€been€previously€determined.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€appellantÏcontends,€however,€that€any€waiver€was€not€knowing€and€understanding.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1).€€Moreover,€he€asserts€that€the€objectiveÏstandard€of€waiver€articulated€by€the€supreme€court€in€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€705,Ïshould€not€be€ð ðretroactivelyðð€applied€to€his€case.€€He€contends€that€such€applicationÏwould€violate€due€process€and€òòex€post€factoóó€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€andÏUnited€States€Constitutions.€€ÌœÌ›Ìà àIn€òòHouseóó,€our€supreme€court€concluded€that€ð ð[w]aiver€in€the€post„convictionÏcontext€is€to€be€determined€by€an€objective€standard€under€which€a€petitioner€isÏbound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€his€attorney.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€714.€€However,€in€articulatingÏthis€objective€standard€of€waiver,€the€court€observed€that€ð ðTennessee€casesÏdealing€generally€with€the€concept€of€waiver€in€the€post„conviction€context€apply€anÍobjective€standard€and€impute€the€conduct€of€counsel€to€their€clients.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€713.€€ÏThe€court€then€applied€this€standard€to€the€appellant€in€that€case.€€In€òòMelson€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€02C01„9402„CR„00023€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996),€in€its€order€denying€the€appellantððs€petition€for€a€rehearing,Ïthis€court€rejected€the€appellantððs€argument€that€the€waiver€standard€set€forth€inÏòòHouseóó€should€not€be€applied€retroactively€ð ðððto€a€petitioner€who€has€relied€on€theÏplain€language€of€the€post„conviction€statute.ðððð€Indeed,€we€noted€that€relevant€caseÏhistory€indicated€that€the€statute,€prior€to€the€supreme€courtððs€opinion€in€òòHouseóó,€didÏnot€require€personal€waiver.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòOððGuinn€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9510„CC„00302€n.€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€April€29,€1997)(in€applying€òòHouseóó,€thisÏcourt€observed€that€ð ð[w]hile€it€is€true€that€òòHouseóó€was€not€issued€until€three€monthsÏafter€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Appellantððs€claim,€the€concept€of€an€objectiveÏwaiver€standard€was€well„established€prior€to€that€rulingðð).€€Thus,€we€must€reject€theÏappellantððs€argument€that€òòHouseóó€altered€the€situation€of€the€appellant€to€hisÏdisadvantage.€€òòState€v.€Braganóó,€920€S.W.2d€227,€241€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996)(citing€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€882Ï(Tenn.€1993)).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Riccióó,€914€S.W.2d€475,€480€(Tenn.€1996)(ð ð[a]n€òòexÏpost€factoóó€law€contains€two€critical€elements€.€.€.€[f]irst,€the€law€must€apply€to€eventsÏoccurring€before€its€enactment;€second,€it€must€disadvantage€the€offender€affectedÏby€itðð).€€The€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòHouseóó€did€not€change€the€law,€but€merelyÏclarified€existing€law.€€Accordingly,€application€of€the€objective€waiver€standard€toÏthe€appellantððs€case€violates€neither€òòex€post€factoóó€nor€due€process€provisions€of€theÍTennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›ÌÌà àEven€in€the€context€of€an€objective€waiver€standard,€the€appellant€contendsÏthat€several€issues€could€not€have€been€presented€in€any€earlier€proceeding.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1).€€Clearly,€ð ðthe€waiver€provision€cannot€logicallyÏor€legally€ððapply€to€a€defense€[or€grounds€for€relief]€.€.€.€which€did€not€exist€and€couldÏnot€have€been€asserted€by€the€most€diligent€counsel€at€the€[prior]€hearing.ððððÏòòSwansonóó,€749€S.W.2d€at€735€(citing€òòPruett€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€807,€809€(Tenn.Ï1973)).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208€(ð ð[b]efore€a€state€may€terminate€aÏclaim€for€failure€to€comply€with€procedural€requirements€.€.€.,€due€process€requiresÏthat€potential€litigants€be€provided€an€opportunity€for€the€presentation€of€claims€at€aÏmeaningful€time€and€in€a€meaningful€manner).€€Additionally,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€permits€a€petitioner€to€rely€upon€ð ða€right€that€was€not€recognized€as€existingÏat€the€time€of€the€trial€if€either€constitution€requires€retrospective€application€of€thatÏright.ððÌÌà àNevertheless,€we€conclude€that€the€record€supports€the€post„convictionÍcourtððs€finding€that€the€appellant€has€waived€the€following€issues:× ƒ3 ××  ×€whether€theÏappellant€was€denied€his€right,€under€the€Tennessee€constitution,€to€a€unanimousÏjury€verdict;€whether€the€death€penalty€infringes€upon€the€appellantððs€fundamentalÏright€to€life€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€constitutions;€whetherÏthe€Stateððs€plea€offer€of€a€life€sentence€infringed€upon€the€appellantððs€right€to€trialÏand€resulted€in€the€arbitrary€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€death€in€violation€of€theÏTennessee€and€United€States€constitutions;€whether€the€appellant€was€sentencedÏby€an€impartial€jury€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€constitutions;Ïand€whether,€in€violation€of€the€state€and€federal€constitutions,€the€grand€jury€wasÏtainted€by€gender€discrimination€in€the€selection€of€grand€jury€forepersons€inÏShelby€County.× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€MIDDLEBROOKS€CLAIMó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€not€waived€his€argument€that,€in€violation€of€our€supremeÏcourtððs€decision€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€317,€the€State€relied€upon€theÏfelony€murder€circumstance€to€both€prove€first€degree€murder€and€to€render€theÏappellant€death€eligible.€€In€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€1177€(1995),€the€supreme€court€held€that€the€decisionÏin€òòMiddlebrooksóó€announced€a€new€rule€that€should€be€applied€retroactivelyÏpursuant€to€òòMeadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€748.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSampleóó,€No.€02C01„9505„CR„00131,€„00139.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Nevertheless,€a€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€juryÏreturned€a€verdict€of€guilt€as€to€count€one€of€the€indictment.€€Count€one€of€theÏindictment€charged€the€Ìappellant€with€ð ðfeloniously,€wilfully,€deliberately,€maliciously€and€premeditatedlyÍKill[ing]€and€Murder[ing]ðð€the€victim.€€Accordingly,€the€indictment€only€encompassedÏpremeditated€first€degree€œmurder€or€what€was€referred€to€as€common€law€murder.›€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2402(a)(1977).€€Thus,€òòMiddlebrooksóó€is€inapplicable.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€€FORCED€MEDICATIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that,€in€violation€of€his€due€process€rights,€heÏwas€forcibly€administered€"mind„dulling"€medication€during€his€trial.€€In€his€first€post„conviction€petition,€filed€in€1982,€the€appellant€asserted€that€he€was€incompetent€toÏstand€trial€as€a€result€of€the€State's€administration€of€Meprobamate€and€DalmaneÏduring€trial.€€On€appeal,€this€court€concluded€that€the€record€did€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€court's€finding€to€the€contrary.€€òòGroseclose€and€Rickmanóó,€No.€9.€€InÏ1985,€the€appellant€filed€a€federal€writ€of€habeas€corpus€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€"heÏwas€unconstitutionally€administered€Meprobamate€and€Dalmane€by€the€State€atÏcritical€stages€of€his€trial."€€òòRickmanóó,€864€F.Supp.€at€712.€€The€appellantððs€secondÏpost„conviction€petition€filed€in€1989,€and€while€the€federal€writ€was€still€pending,Ïalleged€no€claim€of€forced€medication.€€In€1994,€the€federal€district€court€for€theÏMiddle€District€of€Tennessee,€relying€upon€òòRiggins€v.€Nevadaóó,€504€U.S.€127,€112ÏS.Ct.€1811€(1992)× ƒ7 ××  ×,€concluded€that,€because€the€appellant€had€beenÏ"administered€drugs€which€cause€drowsiness€and€may€inhibit€their€ability€to€followÏthe€proceedings,€due€process€requires€a€showing€that€such€medication€isÏnecessary€to€accomplish€an€essential€state€policy."€€òòRickmanóó,€864€F.Supp.€at€713.€ÏIn€April€1995,€the€appellant,€relying€upon€òòRigginsóó€as€a€new€rule€of€law,€filed€theÍinstant€petition€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€he€was€"involuntarily€administered€mind„dulling€drugs€during€the€trial"€in€violation€of€his€state€and€federal€due€processÏrights.× ƒ8 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€existence€of€a€constitutional€right€to€refuse€òòinvoluntarilyóó€administeredÏmedication€grounded€upon€a€liberty€interest€under€the€due€process€clause€of€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€is€undisputed.€€In€òòWashington€v.€Harperóó,€494€U.S.€210,Ï221,€110€S.Ct.€1028,€1036€(1990),€the€Supreme€Court€recognized€the€existence€ofÏa€"significant€liberty€interest€[of€a€convicted€prisoner]€in€avoiding€the€unwantedÍadministration€of€antipsychotic€drugs."× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€Court€also€stated:€"The€forcibleÏinjection€of€medication€into€a€nonconsenting€person's€body€represents€aÏsubstantial€interference€with€that€person's€liberty."€€òòIdóó.€at€229,€110€S.Ct.€at€1041.ÏAlthough€the€Court€refused€to€find€an€òòabsoluteóó€liberty€interest€of€a€competentÏperson€to€refuse€psychotropic€drugs,€it€recognized€that€the€substantive€protectionsÏof€the€Due€Process€Clause,€under€certain€circumstances,€€limit€the€forcedÏadministration€of€psychotropic€drugs€to€inmates.€€òòIdóó.€at€243,€1048.€ÌÌà àIn€òòRiggins€v.€Nevadaóó,€504€U.S.€127,€135,€112€S.Ct.€1810,€1815€(1992),€theÏSupreme€Court€applied€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€principles€of€òòHarperóó€to€theÏpretrial€and€trial€setting€for€detained€defendants.× ƒ: ××  ×€ÌÌà à€Although€the€Supreme€Courtððs€announcement€in€€òòRigginsóó€was€perhaps€newÏto€the€appellant€when€he€filed€his€third€post„conviction€petition,€òòRigginsóó€createdÍneither€a€new€nor€novel€constitutional€rule€of€law.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€€òòSeeóó€€òòRigginsóó,€504€U.S.€at€151,Ï112€S.Ct.€at€1823€(Thomas,€J.,€dissenting)€(liberty€interest€recognized€in€òòHarperóó);€Ïòòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Van€Ordenóó,€647€N.E.2d€641,€644€(Ind.App.€4€Dist.€1995)€("[T]heÏholding€in€òòRigginsóó€does€not€apply€retroactively€to€Van€Orden's€trial€result."€òòTeagueòòóó,Ïóó485€U.S.€at€933,€108€S.Ct.€at€1106).€€òòCfóó.€€òòHeffernan€v.€Norrisóó,€48€F.3d€331,€334€(8thÏCir.€1995)€(holding€that€òòRigginsóó€does€not€present€novel€constitutional€issues).€€òòButÏseeóó€€òòGiannini€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9603„CR„00091€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,ÏJan.€15,€1997).€€€Clearly,€the€liberty€interest€arising€from€the€involuntaryÏadministration€of€medication€was€recognized€in€òòHarperóó,€which€was€decided€inÏ1990.× ƒ< ××  ×€€The€appellant€first€raised€this€issue€in€the€state€courts€in€his€third€post„conviction€petition€filed€in€1995.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€issue€of€forcedÏmedication€barred€by€the€applicable€three€year€statute€of€limitations.€ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€our€holding€that€the€appellant's€forced€medication€claim€isÍtime€barred,€we€are€also€compelled€to€note€that€the€instant€case€does€not€invokeÏthe€due€process€protections€afforded€by€òòHarperóó€and€òòRigginsóó.€€The€Supreme€Court,Ïin€òòRigginsóó,€narrowly€defined€those€circumstances€under€which€the€due€processÏprocedures€set€forth€in€òòHarperóó€€are€required;€the€threshold€determination€beingÏwhether€the€appellant€was€òòforciblyóó€medicated,€i.e.,€whether€the€medication€wasÏunwanted,€compelled,€over€objection,€or€involuntary,€and€not€whether€the€StateÏmay€administer€medication.× ƒ= ××  ×€€òòRigginsóó,€504€U.S.€at€133,€112€S.Ct.€at€1814.€€òòAccordóó€ÏòòMagwood€v.€Stateóó,€689€So.€2d€959,€985€(Ala.€Cr.€App.€1996),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€(Ala.Ï1997);€òòFerguson€v.€Singletaryóó,€632€So.€2d€53,€56€(Fla.€1993);€òòVan€Ordenóó,€647ÏN.E.2d€at€644;€òòEx€Parte€Thomasóó,€906€S.W.2d€22,€24€(Tex.€Crim.€App.€œ1995).€ÏAlthough€no€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€in€the€instant€case,€the€proof€in€theÏrecord€from€the€1982€post„conviction€proceeding€does€not€reflect›€that€theÏmedication€received€by€the€appellant€was€involuntary€or€forced€upon€him.€€Indeed,Ïthe€findings€of€fact€of€the€federal€district€court€indicate€that€the€attending€psychiatristÏinformed€the€appellant€as€to€the€nature€and€identity€of€the€medication€prior€to€itsÏadministration.€€òòRickmanóó,€864€F.Supp.€at€713.€€Moreover,€there€is€no€indication€thatÏthe€appellant,€at€any€time,€objected€to€being€medicated.€€In€a€post„convictionÏpetition,€the€appellant€must€establish€his€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€ÍHowever,€he€fails€to€show€anywhere€in€the€record€that€he€was€forced€to€take€theÏmedication€or€that€there€was€even€an€objection€to€his€œbeing›€medicated.× ƒ> ××  ×€€œThus,€weÏconclude€that€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€implications€addressed€in€òòHarperóó€andÏòòRigginsóó€have€no€application€to€the€case€before€us.€€òòSeeóó€€òòRigginsóó,€504€U.S.€at€133,Ï112€S.Ct.€at€1814.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant's€due€process€contention€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àThe€remaining€issue,€thus,€involves€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€toÏcounsel€as€observed€in€òòRigginsóó.€€"Competence€to€stand€trial€is€rudimentary,€forÏupon€it€depends€the€main€part€of€those€rights€deemed€essential€to€a€fair€trial,Ïincluding€the€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€rights€to€summon,€toÏconfront,€and€to€cross„examine€witnesses,€and€the€right€to€testify€on€one's€ownÏbehalf€or€to€remain€silent€without€penalty€for€doing€so."€€òòRigginsóó,€504€U.S.€at€139„40,€112€S.Ct.€at€1817€(Kennedy,€J.,€concurring)€(citing€òòDrope€v.€Missourióó,€420€U.S.Ï162,€171„172,€95€S.Ct.€896,€903„904€(1975)).€€òòAccordóó€òòPate€v.€Robinsonóó,€383€U.S.Ï375,€86€S.Ct.€836,€15€L.Ed.2d€815€(1966);€€òòState€v.€Stacyóó,€556€S.W.2d€552€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1977);€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€ÍHowever,€the€mere€fact€that€the€appellant€was€receiving€medication€during€theÏcourse€of€a€trial€does€not€òòper€seóó€render€him€incompetent.€€òòSee€generallyóó€€òòState€v.ÏDeAngelisóó,€511€A.2d€310€(Conn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Hamptonóó,€218€So.2d€311€(La.Ï1969);€òòPeople€v.€Hardestyóó,€362€N.W.2d€768€(Mich.App.€1984).€€The€appellant'sÏcompetency€was€previously€litigated€in€his€first€post„conviction€petition.€òòGrosecloseÏand€Rickmanóó,€No.€9.€€As€such,€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined€and€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€courtÏdismissing€the€appellantððs€petition€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge